Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

tampafp.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 872 posts

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#591

Post by bduerst »

InvertedRhodium wrote: post #583
imnotlost wrote: post #563

Fine. You can’t force people or businesses to listen to you or broadcast your speech. That’s American liberty. That’s freedom. You can’t claim that a business is “the public square” and then force them. If you do want a digital public square look for something run by the government with a mandate to publish everything. I’m pretty sure people wouldn’t be too happy with that either… too many libtards, too many nazis, t…

> You can’t claim that a business is “the public square” and then force them. Why not? We place some pretty serious obligations on a few industries - one example is electricity providers of last resort.

>Why not?

Electricity is deemed a common utility and a regulated, granted natural monopoly - one considered a necessary requirement for all citizens and organizations.

Video streaming is not a monopoly, and no number of bad faith arguments about popularity or awareness in consumer headspace change the fact that there are a number easily accessible competitors.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#592

Post by colordrops »

eezurr wrote: post #303
colordrops wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US will become authoritarian precisely because of thinking and assumptions such as yours. 1. Authoritarianism is not a good thing, hard stop. 2. The US is not a long way away from authoritarianism. It's one strongman with actual brains away from it. Making consessions like you suggest is precisely how we slip into authoritarianism.

> Authoritarianism is not a good thing, hard stop. On a spectrum, where e.g. anarchy is on the other end, it is a good thing. Where to place the pin however is a challenge. Binary decisions such as that ("this thing can only be good or bad") is an extremely restricted way at seeing the world. >The US is not a long way away from authoritarianism. It's one strongman with actual brains away from it. I'd love to here why…

Authoritarianism and anarchy are not opposite ends of a spectrum. Furthermore, there are many that reasonably believe that certain forms of structured anarchy are a good thing, and not just teenage punks, but also intellectuals and academics.

Regarding the US falling to authoritarianism, there are at least two factors: 1. Most people are in a state of conditioned helplessness where they don't feel there is anything they can do to affect change. 2. Most people don't have minds of their own but just parrot what they hear in the media that aligns with their party. These two in conjunction leave an opening for someone to execute a soft coup. In fact a draft Trump executive order to discard the election results was released recently. He had convinced his base that the election was fraudulent. Seeing how far Trump got at eroding democracy, imagine someone like Trump but competent in the same situation. Every democracy that has gone authoritarian had plenty of branches and politicians and checks and balances in place.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#593

Post by scarface74 »

abernard1 wrote: post #586
Kranar wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only silly argument I hear is when people think any discussion of censorship must involve the first amendment, or that complaining about censorship implies being forced to use a product. If I go to a restaurant and eat some food and complain that food tasted awful, I am not saying that the restaurant should be forced by the government to make good food nor am I saying that everyone is forced to eat at that restau…

> you should not interpret that to mean that Youtube is infringing on first amendment rights It is much more like 14th Amendment rights and the 1964 CRA enhancement of that. There are prohibitions on private organizations denying equal service based upon certain characteristics. As Twitter, Youtube, Facebook are not actually broadcasters in any sense (what are they broadcasting?), their refusal to conduct business wi…

The Civil Rights Amendment has no protection for political speech. I wonder how Trump’s new “Truth” platform would feel about being forced to post information discrediting his claims?

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#594

Post by xyzzyz »

AaronFriel wrote: post #344
atlantas wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the deal with using guilt by association as a way to disparage or dismiss ideas? Seeing that a lot lately.

The "hard times create..." meme was originally shared by actual ethno-nationalists who have since been banned from most platforms. I don't know if the person I replied to knows that - I think there are a lot of people who don't. It's worth pointing out though there's a disconnect from the first sentence to the second. Why is it that we have to have hard times for us to be better? Well, the argument from the meme - wh…

No, it was originally shared with us by Greek philosophers, over 2 millennia ago.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#595

Post by ayngg »

stereoradonc wrote: post #132

The extent of the "censorship" is getting ridiculous. It is an overreach of the platforms.

Based on what I have seen and what I have heard people say, the principle of freedom of speech is probably dead in the west. People will give their sanctimonious justifications like "it only means the government can't censor not us," "it's freedom of speech, not freedom from consequences," or misuse quotes like Popper's intolerance towards intolerance, or Schenck v. United States's yelling fire in a theater, but in reality the principle of free speech is a foundational social element from which the law is built upon, not the other way around. If society doesn't believe in freedom of speech then it doesn't matter if the government upholds that standard for itself anymore. If we as a society aren't capable of having empathy towards people who have differing opinions instead of dismissing them, then censoring them after ignoring them has caused their beliefs to radicalize to a point, that is the recipe for making politics more entrenched, polarized and escalated than they already are.

Yeah just go build your own platform they will say as if it had not been attempted numerous times only to be censored off every hosting/ payment/ app platforms they could use or hacked to have all the personal information of their users doxxed because they had "bad opinions." Even the ones that actually exist just become hiveminds of their own because they become populated by people who have been censored everywhere else, as if having every community devolve into hive minded safe spaces is actually desirable.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#596

Post by exolymph »

lijogdfljk wrote: post #189
cryptonector wrote: post #158

If it's nonsense, then why censor it? If it's not nonsense, then why censor it?

If it's instructions on drinking bleach, why censor it? The discussion has to be one of nuance, but i think back to the days of TVs (lol). TV and radio had (to my understanding) laws about what you can say on air, different than what you would encounter on the sidewalk. It seems to make sense. After all, piping instructions on drinking bleach into everyones home seems bad. Inciting riots in mass seems bad. I don't kn…

> If it's instructions on drinking bleach, why censor it?

How to drink bleach: Unscrew cap from bottle. Pour bleach down your throat.

Was that so bad?

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#597

Post by scarface74 »

nextaccountic wrote: post #550
Program_Install wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree, if you don’t like it you can move to another platform. No one is forcing you to use it. For that matter “The Hill” can create their own. Always silly, the entitlement to someone else platform based on some misunderstanding of censorship and the 1st amendment.

At this point, major platforms function like public spaces in online discourse, even though they are legally considered private property. Because of their huge influence in society, Youtube shouldn't be permitted to censor political viewpoints in their platform. And see, there's always a fine balance between private property rights and other rights. For example: you can't prevent people from a given ethnicity from sh…

Should Trump’s “Truth” platform be allowed to “censor” political speech?

There is nothing stopping Fox News/NewsMax/OAN from creating their own video hosting platform.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#598

Post by scarface74 »

headsoup wrote: post #554
selfhifive wrote: post #505

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, if you don't like it, don't watch the channel or leave a dislike or comment why the claim is wrong. This isn't even a call to violence or targeted harassment. It's the opinion of a man about election results.

I think you missed the bit where the platform removed content for the mere mention of Trump. So you agree YouTube is perfectly ok to remove content because it mentions 'the opinion of a man about election results.'? And if Trump was to hypothetically win in 2024, would it be perfectly fine for YouTube to remove any content which is dissenting of Trump? I'm sure a dislike or negative comment would stop that...

Yes.

There is nothing stopping Trump from creating his own video platform. He is supposedly a billionaire isn’t he?

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#599

Post by bduerst »

abernard1 wrote: post #586
Kranar wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only silly argument I hear is when people think any discussion of censorship must involve the first amendment, or that complaining about censorship implies being forced to use a product. If I go to a restaurant and eat some food and complain that food tasted awful, I am not saying that the restaurant should be forced by the government to make good food nor am I saying that everyone is forced to eat at that restau…

> you should not interpret that to mean that Youtube is infringing on first amendment rights It is much more like 14th Amendment rights and the 1964 CRA enhancement of that. There are prohibitions on private organizations denying equal service based upon certain characteristics. As Twitter, Youtube, Facebook are not actually broadcasters in any sense (what are they broadcasting?), their refusal to conduct business wi…

Political association is a choice and is thus not a protected class.

There is a certain U.S. political party who has a persecution fetish that makes bad faith statements about their opinions needing to be protected, but I'll let you figure out which one it is.

Re: YouTube suspends The Hill for playing clip of Trump denying election results

#600

Post by mise_en_place »

themitigating wrote: post #580
ok123456 wrote: post #564

After the mid-terms, any Section 230 protection these companies have is going bye-bye. Any kind of active moderation of perfectly legal speech through 'terms of service'/'community standards' will remove any common-carrier liability shield. Actions like this have turned this into political red meat for some. These companies really need to learn how to read the room. Ratcheting downward the ability of people to freely…

Why would the midterms do this?

The midterms won’t, but the Fed losing control of interest rates will. You’re going to see a lot of valuation disappear in the next year as the bubble deflates.
Post reply on HN